Fit-gap analysis

Fit-gap analysis is the structured comparison of a customer's requirements against an ERP or CRM's out-of-the-box capabilities, classifying each requirement as fit (standard does it), fit with configuration (standard handles it with setup), gap (no standard support — needs customisation, third-party add-on, or process change). Most implementations begin with fit-gap workshops by area (finance, sales, operations, etc.), and the resulting gap list drives the customisation budget and scope. Success by Design methodology emphasises fit to standard — every gap is evaluated against business value before being committed to as customisation. Honest fit-gap analysis is one of the most consequential early-project activities.

In practice, the discipline that separates a useful fit-gap exercise from a rubber-stamp one is genuinely testing "fit with configuration" before declaring something a "gap." A requirement that looks like it needs custom code often turns out to be achievable with standard configuration once someone with real product depth looks at it properly — the failure mode is a consultant unfamiliar with the product's configuration depth defaulting to "gap, needs customisation" too quickly, which inflates the build budget and the platform's future upgrade burden for no real reason.

Where confusion shows up: a "gap" is not automatically a mandate to build custom code — it's a decision point with at least three real options (build a customisation, buy a third-party ISV add-on, or change the business process to fit the standard). Success by Design's fit-to-standard principle exists precisely because the cheapest, most upgrade-safe option is usually adapting the process, and that option gets skipped by default unless the fit-gap workshop explicitly asks "does this gap actually need to be closed, or does the requirement itself need re-examining."